It's a little tricky to speak specifically to the example. I guess I don't fully appreciate how manufacturers would get access to the equipment or the software that they need. If it were to be via an infringing method, and they had an infringing copy, the exception would no longer apply, because there's a non-application.
At the end of the day, they need to get it from someone who has it, and has it legally. That's where we believe that “lawfully obtained” does that, because at that point, it's not restricted to simply whether or not they are the owners or the licensees, which I feel is quite a direct relationship.
We believe that the “lawfully obtained” basically expands that. If individuals wish to work with Honey Bee, or any other manufacturer, and make the equipment they have purchased interoperable with the equipment that Honey Bee produces, they would be able to provide access to their combine to Honey Bee, which would then be able to do the work.
There's nothing here—whether it's in your bill, in the law as drafted, or in the amendment that is being proposed—that would allow a manufacturer to make an infringing copy in order to then work on it and circumvent it.